Does banning dogs from the GGNRA help the environment?

Once again, the feds are making an effort to limit off-leash dog areas in the Golden Gate National Recreational Area.

The conflicts that have already begun over the Park Service’s recommendations (a 30-day comment period has opened) are described in terms of environmentalists versus dog owners. But that’s a skewed perspective, since this blogger is hardly the only dog-loving nature lover in the Bay Area.

As an environmentalist, I want to keep pristine wilderness pristine. I would agree that dogs should be banned from such areas, because even good dogs get a wild hair from time to time and go tearing off the trail, doing some damage to flora and potentially frightening birds and small animals.

Even so, in big open areas, the damage is diffused, and unless the flora and fauna is particularly sensitive, life continues on according to its plan — particularly in lands where canine coyotes are native, like much of the GGNRA.

In a place like Fort Funston, where there are tons and tons of dogs, the damage is more significant.

But that’s not the whole story. Consider that much of Fort Funston is paved and that the beach is home to old military constructions as well as to a giant pipe taking our treated sewage out to sea and you will see that delicate wilderness is not the issue. To wit: Dogs are also banned from the paved Tennessee Valley trail in the Marin Headlands.

If you read the fine print in dog-blocking proposals like the one just released, the real reason is almost always people — specifically, people who don’t like dogs.

“The status quo is not really tenable,” said Frank Dean, the superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. “It’s confusing where you can go with your dog, and some people are not comfortable with dogs.”

Those people are like straight couples who come into a gay bar and want to ban PDA there because they’re not comfortable with it. They already have 99 percent of the GGNRA, while dog lovers get just one percent.

Certainly, let’s clarify where dogs are allowed, but let’s do it in a way that makes it possible for dogs to be off-leash in some areas. Also at the Marin Headlands, the most dog-friendly trail is a loop trail that allows dogs on some segments but not on others. Why not give dog people a single hike to enjoy?

I’d suggest that those who don’t like dogs pursue their agenda at the expense of the environment, even while they dress it up as environmental concern. If off-lease dogs are banned from Fort Funston and other popular dog play areas, the dogs — who are animals, and thus part of the environment — are deprived the opportunity to socialize with one another, an absolutely core aspect of their instinctual behavior. They’re also deprived the opportunity to get adequate exercise. (Any dog owner can attest that a dog needs more exercise than a human can keep up with.) That equals grumpy, poorly socialized dogs in the city, where it’s harder for dog-haters to avoid them.

Another thing happens when you ban Rover from less sensitive habitat: Many frustrated owners will take him elsewhere. In the vast landscape of the GGNRA, a ranger is not always there to catch violators, and, in the end, we end up with damage to truly sensitive ecosystems by crying dog too often. The more parks ban dogs from paved trails and fire roads using “the environment” as an excuse, the less credibility this claim has with the average dog owner.

It’s time to be honest: This is about people who don’t like dogs, and those people already have more than their fair share of places to go in the world, including the entire national park system and virtually all California state parks. Let the dogs have their PDA at Fort Funston and Muir Beach.